Fateh Salim

The Union filed a group grievance alleging that the Ministry of Finance applied a travel policy in a discriminatory and arbitrary fashion.

The Employer requested particulars of the alleged discriminatory treatment.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued an interim decision ordering the Union to provide specific particulars, including the names of individuals affected, dates of occurrences, and details of how the policy was allegedly broken, by April 30, 2002.

The union sought to consolidate six additional grievances filed by the grievor with a November 2, 2000 group grievance alleging constructive dismissal, discrimination, and unfair discipline related to union activities.

The employer opposed consolidation, arguing the additional grievances were individual, untimely, or outside the board's jurisdiction.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the consolidation for five of the six grievances, finding they shared a common question of fact regarding the employer's motive and alleged retaliation for union activities.

One grievance regarding incorrect pay was dismissed as moot because the issue had been resolved by a subsequent reclassification.

The grievor was surplused in December 1995 and commenced a civil action against the employer in June 1997, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in May 1998.

The grievor then filed a grievance in December 1998, approximately three years after the surplus notice.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely.

The Grievance Settlement Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to extend the time limits, citing the extreme length of the delay and the lack of a reasonable explanation for failing to file a grievance earlier.

The grievance was dismissed as untimely.

The grievors, Operational Managers, filed grievances claiming inadequate compensation for statutory holidays, seeking 12 hours of lieu time retroactively to match a benefit awarded to bargaining unit members.

The employer objected that the grievances were untimely and without merit.

The Public Service Grievance Board dismissed the grievances, finding that a four-year delay in filing was unjustified.

Furthermore, the Board held that management employees have no legal entitlement to benefits solely because they were granted to bargaining unit members under a collective agreement.

The grievors were surplused employees who chose to accept pay in lieu of notice rather than working out their six-month notice period.

They filed grievances claiming they should have been covered by benefits during the notice period under the Employment Standards Act.

The Union subsequently investigated the matter and concluded there was no dispute between the parties to the Collective Agreement.

As a result, the Vice Chair found no jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the grievance.

The grievor, an International Market Consultant, was reassigned to different duties during a workplace reorganization.

Although his job classification and pay remained the same, he grieved the reassignment, alleging it constituted age discrimination under the collective agreement.

The union argued that the employer's new human resources strategy, which emphasized youth recruitment, created a climate that favoured younger workers.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding no direct evidence that age was a factor in the specific decision to reassign the grievor, and accepting the manager's testimony that the decision was based on operational needs and staffing levels.

The union filed a group grievance claiming standby pay for maintenance employees designated as emergency workers during the 1996 OPS strike.

The employees were not called to work but argued they had to remain ready.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding it was covered by a prior master settlement award that withdrew all grievances requesting premium payments for emergency workers unless a commitment to pay was made.

The employer's letter only committed to premium payments if work was actually performed, which did not occur.

The union filed a group grievance on behalf of former employees of a psychiatric hospital unit, alleging they were denied the right to be surplused and exercise bumping rights upon the unit's privatization.

The parties agreed that this grievance was covered by a comprehensive settlement of all Appendix 9 (Reasonable Accommodation) grievances, which provided a $2,000,000 lump sum but allocated no money to these specific grievors.

As all such grievances were withdrawn under the settlement, this grievance was dismissed.

The grievor, a tax auditor, claimed travel expenses from the audit location to his residence at the end of the work day, rather than to the office.

The employer required the grievor to travel back to the office during regular working hours, which the union argued violated the collective agreement by treating travel time as work time.

The Grievance Settlement Board held that the employer has the right to require employees to travel during regular working hours as a cost-saving measure, even if it results in less actual audit time.

The grievance was dismissed.

The Grievance Settlement Board issued a consent order resolving multiple grievances between OPSEU and the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

The order directed the assignment of two grievors to Clerk 2 positions with unbroken continuous service dates, pension contributions, and vacation credits.

It also ordered the employer to pay a total of $7,000 in backpay, education allowance, and re-employment expenses to four grievors, and appointed one grievor to an unclassified position for six months.

Three employers applied for judicial review of arbitration awards that reinstated employees who had been discharged following criminal convictions for sexual assault in the workplace.

In each case, the arbitrators had allowed the unions to collaterally attack the criminal convictions and had concluded the employees were innocent.

The Divisional Court granted the applications and quashed the arbitration awards, holding that a criminal conviction cannot be collaterally attacked at a subsequent arbitration.

The doctrine of abuse of process prevents an arbitrator from retrying a criminal case and treating a conviction as merely prima facie evidence.

The union filed grievances alleging the employer failed to provide proper notice of termination when operations were divested and employees were transferred to a successor employer.

The employer brought a preliminary motion arguing there was no arbitrable difference, as the grievors were not laid off under the collective agreement, obligations under the relevant appendix were resolved by a prior agreement, and the Employment Standards Act did not apply due to continuity of employment.

The arbitrator agreed, finding no difference between the parties and therefore no jurisdiction under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

The grievances were dismissed.